LGBTQIA+ rights activists accuse the Democratic Party of enabling Trump Administration laws that harm the community. From age verification laws to attacks on section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the North American opposition is being criticized for, in the group’s view, helping the MAGA (Make America Great Again) agenda to be fulfilled.
Evan Greer and Janus Rosa, activists from the organization “Fight for the Future”, criticize, in a article from “Teen Vogue” magazinewhat they consider to be ineffective attempts by Democrats to prevent discriminatory laws from being enacted, considering that the measures taken have had no effect, or even counterproductive.
This complicity between Democrats and Republicans, according to Greer and Rosa, becomes evident in the age verification law, which prevents minors from accessing websites that the State declares to be harmful. Despite being focused on the cybersecurity of younger people, the law allows states to identify websites for the LGBTQIA+ community as harmful content and, therefore, limit their access. An example of this is the law passed last year in the State of Kansas, where community websites are at risk of blocking due to the definition of “content harmful to minors”. The breadth of the legal definition allows any website that mentions “acts of homosexuality” to be included in this censorship, thus restricting young people’s access to information.
Activists claim that laws like this can be used by Republicans as tools for discrimination. And, by aligning themselves with this supposed attempt to protect children, Democrats, “even those who walk alongside the LGBTQIA+ community in marches”, end up unwittingly supporting Trump’s agenda, leaving young people in the community without access to health information and contact with people queer e trans.
A The second strand of criticism lies in the Democrats’ attacks on section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which the young activists consider misguided.
This establishes that digital platforms cannot be held legally responsible for the content of their users. Activists argue that, although the law prevents companies from being sued for content such as defending LGBTQIA+ rights and mobilization links, itIt also prevents them from being sued for discrimination, which would protect them under state laws that criminalize LGBTQIA+ content.
Democratic Senator Dick Durbin proposed removing this paragraph, claiming that big technology companies need to be held accountable for what is published on social media. Despite partially agreeing with Senator Durkin, Greer and Rosa believe that this small paragraph is crucial. They believe it is the only thing stopping the Trump Administration from using its power to censor communication.
Agenda MAGA (Make America Great Again) is already underway
At the time of dismissal of Jimmy KimmelAziz Huq, Professor of Law at the University of Chicago, he told the website “Politico” that if the comedian wanted to, he had “a good chance” to win in the Supreme Court of Justice, based on in a previous case that occurred during Joe Biden’s presidency, related to fake news about COVID-19.
In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Government could not limit the media’s freedom of expression, even if the information was false. Huq highlights that it was precisely the conservative judges, led by Samuel Alito, who most strongly defended this principle of the First Amendment.
For young activists, this “common ground between Democrats and MAGA” actually pharms children, as it deprives them of information. According to them, while these politicians try to create laws that don’t actually solve any problems, they forget about the real problems: “If they really cared about the children, they would stop trying to take away their healthcare and make sure they all had food and a home,” they say.
For Evan Greer and Janus Rosa, these Democrats are helping Trump censor the internet and complete Project 2025. This is a detailed plan, developed by the most conservative Republicans, that seeks to reshape the federal government to align policies with their ideals, including anti-LGBTQIA+ proposals.
According to one site monitoring, 48% of this political program has already been fulfilled. And, of the 19 proposals related to the LGBTQIA+ community, 11 have already been completed and four were in process. One of medicineas was the reversal ofpolicies that allowed transgender people to serve in the military, stating that “those with gender dysphoria should be expelled from military service.”
The group Fight for The Future, that the two activists represent, junites several artists, engineers and activists who demonstrate onlineand, with the mission of “channeling internet outrage into political power”.
Text written by Margarida Nogueira and edited by Pedro Miguel Coelho